1. Multiculturalism is by definition a self-contradictory project, claiming as it does to support both difference (diversity) and sameness (equality) at the same time (Turner, 2006).
2. In multiculturalism, minorities are encouraged to assert their identity as well as their political and economic rights, whereas the majority is discouraged from doing so. This leads to loss of control over immigration policy and replacement of the majority population (Salter, p. 189).
3. Cultural diversity or the co-existence of distinct cultures within a society can only be a good thing if and to the extent that it serves the interests of the society in question. Otherwise, it may well become a problem, for example:
• When it is misused by political and other organizations for their own agenda.
• When it is imposed by governments against the wishes or interests of the affected population.
• When it is misused by an alien culture to impose itself on the indigenous culture or cultures.
• When one of the cultures promoted, e.g., Islam, is incompatible with the others, etc.
WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF MULTICULTURALISM?
Multiculturalism originated in the circles of the Milner group and the Fabian Society. The original general assumption had been that British society should have one culture and that all immigrants would be assimilated into British society. In the 1930s, leading Labourite Richard Tawney wrote, quite correctly, that:
"Without a common culture, a community is not a community at all" (West, p. 54).
In 1963, the Conservative chairman of the Middlesex County Council Education Committee, Sir Archer Hoare, said:
"A separate racial community in our midst would be contrary to the English way of life and the only satisfactory long-term solution must be that immigrant pupils ... should be integrated in the general community."
Similarly, in its 1964 report, the Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC), set up by Conservative Home Secretary Richard A. Butler to examine arrangements made by local councils to assist Commonwealth immigrants to adapt themselves to British culture, stated: "a national system cannot be expected to perpetuate the different values of immigrant groups" (Patterson, p. 110).
However, the interpretation of "integration" gradually began to shift from assimilation to "cultural pluralism" and this shift can be traced to Milner-Fabian interests.
The idea of cultural pluralism was developed in the early 1900s by leading Milner Group member John Buchan (later Lord Tweedsmuir) who was one of Lord Milners lieutenants in South Africa where he aimed to fuse the different local and imported races and cultures for the purpose of imperial unity.
Originally from Scotland, Buchan thought of himself as Scottish, British and South African all at the same time. As Governor-General of Canada in the 1930s, Buchan added a new, Canadian identity to his already motley collection and systematically promoted his view that "the strongest nations are those that are made up of different racial elements" by which he also meant cultural elements (Henshaw, pp. 198-201).
Although this later became official Canadian state policy, it is indisputable that it originated in Milner-Fabian empire politics. Thus, multiculturalism is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon but an artificial device consciously developed by the international money power as an instrument for world domination.
In addition, Buchans multiculturalism was meant for the dominions and not for the United Kingdom itself. Despite its British origins, therefore, state-imposed multiculturalism arrived in the UK via South Africa, Canada and, above all, the USA.
In the 1950s, leading Fabian Society members like Hugh Gaitskell, Anthony Crosland and Roy Jenkins, who were on the payroll of international money interests, began to "modernize" British society after the model of American society and the Labour Party after the model of the US Democratic Party, launching a campaign of systematic promotion of American culture (Callaghan, pp. 202-3).
This was done in collaboration with the CIA-funded Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) and the closely-related Rockefeller and Ford foundations (Callaghan, p. 201-2). The CIA itself, of course, was controlled by the same financial interests, most of its directors having been Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) members, beginning with Allen Dulles (younger brother of CFR and UN co-founder John Foster Dulles), who was himself a banker (see chapter 4, Council on Foreign Relations).
It may be noted that Rockefeller and allied financial interests had been promoting African-American culture for political purposes since the 1920s (see Ch. 8, Immigration). In 2009, the Rockefeller Foundation granted $155,000 to Jazz at Jazz at Lincoln Center (JALC) for producing a DVD film illustrating the "democratic principles" of jazz music that are allegedly "fundamental to the American way of life".
From its base in New York City, JALC operates a nation-wide network of programmes indoctrinating millions of unsuspecting citizens into giving up their own heritage in favour of African-American culture.
As American culture was influenced by African elements, the promotion of jazz clubs and music styles rooted in the Negro Spiritual tradition introduced strong African-American influence into British and European culture. Indeed, it must be understood from the outset that this Afro-Americanization was a Europe-wide process promoted by the Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford (and more recently Soros) foundations. Therefore, similar developments were taking place in France and elsewhere (see Tournes, 1999, 2003, 2010; Tourns & Vadelorge, 1999 and others).
This combined with large-scale immigration from the West Indies and other parts of the British Commonwealth and former European colonies to enable multiculturalism to take root in British and European society. This process was reinforced by African-Caribbean traditions like reggae in the 1960s and 70s (promoted by the same interests) and later became dominant, paving the way for large-scale penetration of European culture by non-European traditions.
By the early 1960s, it was clear that large numbers of immigrants, particularly South Asians (Indians and Pakistanis) were not prepared to assimilate (Patterson, p. 111). Instead of encouraging the immigrant population to assimilate, the leftwing political leadership under Labour PM Harold Wilson reacted by imposing multiculturalism disguised as "integration" on the indigenous society (Joppke, p. 233).
In a speech to a meeting of Voluntary Liaison Committees on 23 May 1966, Labour Home Secretary and former Fabian Society Chairman, Roy Jenkins, defined integration as "equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity", adding that this was now a "Home Office responsibility" (Patterson, p. 113).
The policy of the Fabian Socialist Labour Party from the late 1960s has been to transform Britain into a multicultural society ("Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser", Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009). This is supposed to make British society "richer", "better", "more competitive" and "more successful". However, there are a number of serious problems with this view:
1. State-imposed multiculturalism disregards the wishes and interests of the indigenous majority population and therefore violates the most fundamental principle of democracy. It also violates the wishes and interests of those immigrants who want to integrate into the majority culture.
2. Society needs a dominant majority culture to keep it together.
Scientific research has shown that multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies are less able to cooperate, for example, on issues like the development of public infrastructure and national defence, than those belonging to the same ethnic and cultural group (Salter, p. 146). What stable and successful societies have in common is not cultural diversity, but cultural unity based on a set of shared cultural values.
3. The idea that cultural diversity makes a society "richer" is bogus.
If it were true that cultural diversity makes a society richer it would mean that the more culturally diverse a society is, the better it will become. This is not supported by any known evidence. In reality, greater diversity means greater division, eventually leading to the disintegration of the society or culture in question. Clearly, this is the plan of the multiculturalist Left which has always aimed to break up and reconstruct society for its own agenda.
4. History shows that multicultural societies are neither "better", nor "more successful" than monocultural ones.
The Biblical Tower of Babel is no empty warning. In most cases, multiculturalism in the long term leads to conflict, disunity and bloodshed as it has done for example, in the Roman Empire, Germany, Ireland, India, Israel, Yugoslavia and many other places.
The Roman Empire is a case in point. "Historian" Bonnie Greer - a panel member on the BBC Question Time Immigration Debate (22 Oct. 2009) - appeared to suggest the Roman Empire as a model of "multicultural society".
As a historian, Greer ought to have known some basic historical facts, for example, that the Romans came to Britain as invaders and occupiers; that their aim was to plunder the countrys natural resources; that they were responsible for the murder of thousands of indigenous Britons in addition to millions of Continental Celts; that the Roman Empire was built on the oppression, enslavement and exploitation of other nations; and that there were many struggles of liberation from Roman rule, which were brutally suppressed.
Finally, Roman multiculturalism only lasted until one alien culture (Christianity) was allowed to infiltrate and subvert the established order, after which it soon collapsed and disappeared.
On balance, not an example for Britain - or any other nation interested in self-preservation - to emulate. Greer also appears to have forgotten the religious persecution practised by Roman authorities.
5. Multiculturalism is motivated by a hidden agenda.
The hidden agenda of the multiculturalist industry is immediately exposed by its demand to make British society "more multicultural" ("Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser", Daily Telegraph, 23 Oct. 2009).
The fact is that Britain has long been multicultural. British culture contains Celtic, Roman and Anglo-Saxon elements. Christianity itself contains elements of Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) and Middle Eastern (Egyptian, Jewish) origin. As adding salt to already salted food would destroy its taste and nutritional value, making Britain even more multicultural than it already is means to make it more foreign and less British, that is, to destroy its cultural identity. This clearly exposes the anti-British agenda of the multiculturalist brigade.
Tellingly, Roy Jenkins served as Fabian Society chairman in the 1950s and in the 1970s joined David Rockefellers Trilateral Commission. The Wilson government itself was funded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which was run by members of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (Martin, p. 109 and note, pp. 504-5, below).
Thus, a clear connection can be established between multiculturalism and the international money power whose agenda is to establish world government by destroying the nation-state.
6. Multiculturalism is self-contradictory and counter-productive.
The international financial interests agenda coincides with that of International Socialism. In particular, multiculturalism is based on the left-wing assumption that Britains indigenous culture is fundamentally defective and in need of being replaced with something else.
To the extent that it rejects Britains majority culture and promotes cultures that are opposed to diversity, such as Islam, multiculturalism contradicts itself. In practice, it can never lead to cultural equality but to the annihilation of British culture and its replacement with that imported culture which is most efficient in imposing itself and suppressing other cultures.
Currently, the strongest candidate for this - as the fastest-growing imported culture - is Islam.
MULTICULTURALISM AND ISLAMIZATION
While multiculturalism in and of itself does not automatically lead to Islamization, there are some specific factors which indicate that it does so in Britain and other countries with a growing Muslim population.
1. The largest section (about half) of Britains immigrant population has traditionally been of South Asian (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi) origin (Halsey & Webb, p. 152). The majority of that are Muslims. If to this we add Muslims from the Mediterranean Union, that is, North Africa and the Middle East (Turkey, Iraq), etc., we can see that Islam is a dominant element in the immigrant population.
2. The birth rate in the Muslim population is higher than that in the indigenous society.
3. The Muslim population is the least willing to assimilate into the existing indigenous society.
4. The Muslim population receives special support from British and foreign governments, local councils, race relations committees, race activists, etc. For example, Saudi Arabia poured 50 million pounds sterling into the construction of mosques and Islamic centres in Britain between 1980 and 1990 alone (Joppke, p. 253).
Similarly, between 1995 and 2008, over 233.5 million pounds sterling was paid to British universities by Islamic regimes to change the intellectual climate in favour of Islam and against the West ("Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to hostile teaching", Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011). No comparable support for Christianity exists.
All the above factors inevitably lead to the growth of the Islamic element in the multicultural scheme and this means gradual but sure Islamization of British society and culture. In the face of the facts, even the arch-architect of multiculturalism, Roy Jenkins himself, was forced to admit the fallacy of pro-Muslim immigration policies, stating:
"We might have been more cautious about allowing the creation in the 1950s of substantial Muslim communities here" ("On Race Relations and the Rushdie Affair", Independent Magazine, 4 Mar. 1989).
Unfortunately, Jenkins and his fellow Labourites failed to propose any solution to the problem they have created (see also Note).
IS THERE A LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY EUROPES INDIGENOUS CULTURE?
As we have just seen, in Britain, Labour Socialism has been the architect of both multiculturalism and the Islamization resulting from it. The question that naturally arises is, what are Labours motives? It must be pointed out that even among those who are (or claim to be) critical of multiculturalism and Islamization there are some who apparently fail to see any deliberate intention.
In "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe" Christopher Caldwell states: "Western Europe became a multiethnic society in a fit of absence of mind" (p. 3).
In "The Poverty of Multiculturalism" Patrick West writes that "Celebrating diversity is an unwitting way of implementing a policy of divide and rule" (p. 60).
But a policy designed to divide and rule cannot be unwitting. Design implies intentional planning.
The simultaneous promotion of both diversity and equality (or difference and sameness) could be mistaken for the schizoid thinking (or "doublethink", to use Orwells term) of liberal elites who have lost their way, were it not for the well-documented and very Machiavellian leftist tactic of promoting irrationalism (or intellectual confusion) as a smokescreen for Marxist agendas.
The left-wing journalist and Fabian Polly Toynbee was (perhaps unwittingly) closer to the truth when she wrote that Islams anti-Americanism was the reason why it was embraced by the Left ("I may be in bad company, but this law will not work", Guardian, 15 Dec. 2004).
We are grateful to Toynbee for this valuable insight into leftist thinking. But, could it be that her frank admission unwittingly covers up something else? For example, the fact that Islam is not only anti-American, but also anti-British, anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Christian - as became evident after the 7/7 London bombing and other atrocities if not before - and, therefore, if the Left embraces Islam for its anti-Americanism, it also embraces Islam for its anti-Britishism, anti-Europeanism, anti-Westernism and anti-Christianism.
Indeed, the Left believes that culture must be "modified to accommodate itself to progressive conditions" (Wollheim, p. 18). This belief found official expression in publications like the 1985 Swann Report, Education for All, which recommended that British society be changed to accommodate ethnic groups (Lewis, 142).
The Left also believes in the destruction of traditional British culture as a precondition for the establishment of Socialism. British resistance to alien ways of life and attachment to Christian values are deemed "undesirable" by the Left (Wollheim, p. 12).
This, again, found its way into government papers like the Swann Report which recommended an end to morning assembly with prayers, the teaching of ethnic languages like Punjabi even in all-white schools and that multiculturalism "permeate all aspects of a schools work".
Such official multiculturalist recommendations were eagerly picked up by Labour-controlled local councils and local education authorities, particularly in Inner London (Lewis, 142; Joppke, p. 237).
Following the logic of its social-conflict or class-struggle strategy on which it depends for its survival, the Left has long abandoned the indigenous working class in favour of the immigrant class and the latter in favour of the Muslim class, the largest, best organized, most militant and therefore most useful immigrant group for Socialist revolutionary purposes.
In this process, Labour has abandoned the culture of the indigenous population in favour of multiculturalism and Islam.
There can be no doubt that the Left - or those factions of it which have not yet fully embraced Islam - hopes to reform Islam in the same way it has reformed Western religion and culture. Whether it has any chance of success is another matter.
To return to Caldwells claim that "Western Europe became a multiethnic society in a fit of absence of mind". The fact is that Western Europe became multiethnic because it was convenient to unprincipled and corrupt local business, international finance and their political collaborators for it to become multiethnic. Being a columnist for the Financial Times and New York Times, Caldwell understandably lets the money power off the hook.
In sum, multiculturalism is nothing but a device by which the anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Christian Left in collaboration with its international paymasters seeks to destroy indigenous culture and replace it with an alien one for its own agenda. In this process, "cultural equality" inevitably morphs into cultural subordination and, finally, cultural annihilation, of the indigenous majority community.
NOTE
The Establishments expectation that a society dominated by Islam will be "inclusive" and "tolerant" is contradicted by the historical evidence showing that Islamic rule led to the destruction of libraries from Cordoba to Nalanda, the exile or execution of scholars and poets (Averroes, Mansur-al-Hallaj) and, more recently, the destruction of archaeological sites (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria), while Christians in Muslim-occupied countries like Turkey were deported, massacred or forced to go underground (cf. M. Smith, The Way of the Mystics, p. 124).
The only remedy to this is a return to traditional values as a means of restoring and defending Western civilization.
REFERENCES
Caldwell, Christopher, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 2009.
Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.
Halsey, A. H. and Webb, J., Twentieth-Century British Social Trends, London, 2000.
Henshaw, Peter, "John Buchan and the British Imperial Origins of Canadian Multiculturalism", in Hillmer, N. & Chapnik A., eds., Canadas of the Mind: The Making and Unmaking of Canadian Nationalisms in the Twentieth Century, Quebec, 2007.
Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.
Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A., Chicago, IL, 1966.
Patterson, Sheila, Immigration and Race Relations in Britain 1960-1967, London, 1969.
Salter, Frank, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration, New York, 2003, 2" printing, New Brunswick, NJ, 2007.
Tourns, Ludovic, New Orleans sur Seine (histoire du jazz en France), Paris, 1999.
Tourns, Ludovic & Vadelorge, Loic, eds., De l'acculturation du politique au multiculturalisme (sociabilits musicales contemporaines), Paris, 1999.
Tourns, Ludovic, "Les lites franaises et lamricanisation: le rseau des boursiers de la fondation Rockefeller (1917-1970)", Relations internationales, no. 116, Nov.-Dec. 2003, pp. 501-513.
Tourns, Ludovic, L'argent de l'influence, Les fondations amricaines et leur rseaux en Europe, Paris, 2010.
Turner, Bryan S., ed., The Cambrige Dictionary of Sociology, Cambrige, 2006.
West, Patrick, The Poverty of Multiculturalism, London, 2005.
